Mugsey opened this issue on Oct 28, 2009 · 96 posts
Penguinisto posted Wed, 28 October 2009 at 2:03 PM
Quote -
Anyway - yes your making valid points, but some of us do use figures for actual graphics work, and not for "SIMPORN", which is my beef with the "WHORE CLOTHES" concept. Mind you I fully support the further developement of "FAKE PORN" , because if it nudged out "real porn", it would actually decrease gross human exploitation. Cartoons don't have souls or an id to scar.
Still - I would like to see a lot more universally usable clothing products and freebies. I'm not saying don't deprive Melvin the geek who lives in his mom's basement of a non-damaging,
victimless outlet. I just want to see stuff that people can actually use more universally.
Let's wander off the reservation a bit, shall we?
Speaking as someone who hung out waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much at Renderotica awhile back, I have to say that the best pr0n (at least IMHO) usually didn't involve "sexy" clothing.
Seriously - ordinary clothing works just fine, and adds a touch of reality to the image. Besides, the ultimate driver of good vs. bad pr0n isn't the clothing anyway - it's all the little details that come together.
I've lost track (and count) of the number of renders that, like the ones here, are pure crap. The 'artist' barely gets the mechanics together, and forgets about all those10^5 little details that together destroy whatever it was the 'artist' was trying to convey. Things like overly-exaggerated facial expressions, joints bent beyond the point of tearing and sloppily post-worked (if they bothered to), lighting that was flat (if you were lucky), the eyes pointed off into space somewhere, the facial expressions consisted of just the mouth (sloppily done), and the body's positioning often defied physics.
Oh, and the joints... holy sh!t. Most of the joints are not even close to being paid attention to (hint: every joint on the figure should be used if you're posing a humanoid figure - not just the big/obvious ones). Most times, a canned pose is plopped in, then a couple of joints are (maybe) tweaked --and often wrongly-- to fix the obvious collisions and hose-ups. Here's a few hints, kids:
...anyway, I'm meandering a bit too much here.
Back to the subject - pr0n or not, there's usually a huge diff between good and bad. Good does not require window dressing - as long as the subjects are seen to be doing something (and the whole body is geared towards expressing it), the clothes are superfluous.
Personally, when it comes to pr0n, give me conforming clothing to work with that actually moves, and I'm a happy camper. It's infinitely more sensuous to have a figure with an open collared button-down shirt, than it is to have a figure with a top designed explicitly to let the 'girls' flop around in the breeze, yanno? A pushed-up/down/sideways sweater is a hell of a lot more useful in this endeavor than a "camisole" that has two 'strategically' placed holes carved in the mesh. Ugly work jeans that open and fall are way the hell more useful in expressing the subject than even the tightest cameltoe-displaying "hot pants". Hell, 'granny panties' that actually have some movement to them are more useful than even the sexiest thong.
Anyrate, them's my 2 rubles on the subject...